In the Shadow of Empire: States in an Ottoman System

Abstract

What is the origin of the Middle Eastern state? Although social scientists have traditionally emphasized the role of the European colonial experience, especially the British and French mandates following World War I, the late Ottoman era from the Edict of Gülhane in 1839 that inaugurated the Tanzimat reforms until World War I represents a period at least as critical to understanding origins of the state in the region. Certain Ottoman provinces known as Eyalet-i Mümtaze or exceptional/special provinces developed under the aegis of the Ottoman Empire that acquired many statelike attributes without becoming independent polities. Moreover, the nature of the Ottoman Imperial center changed to become more similar to that of a territorially delimited state as opposed to the classic multifaceted polity that had been the earlier norm. These developments resulted in a blurring of lines that had traditionally defined state and empire during the nineteenth-century Ottoman Empire. To illustrate this change, economic, administrative, and political examples are presented from Egypt and Turkey. This comparative analysis will identify ways the evolution of the two states was similar as well as critical differences such as the extent of foreign intervention and the role played by representative assemblies. The formation of imperial states within the empire as well as the transformation of the empire to become more statelike resulted in strong state institutions in places such as Egypt and Turkey that long preceded the main European colonial intervention in the region after World War I.

De-Historicizing (Mainstream) Ottoman Historiography on Tanzimat and Tahdith: Jus Gentium and Pax Britannica Violate Osmanli Sovereignty in Arabia

“…For example, the encounter between the Mamluks and Osmanlis in the 16th century initiated what would later become known as a "political Ottoman Egyptian elite" [72,77], ([78] p. 275). This suggests that the process of this elite formation-which had begun by the mid-17th century and was complete in the closing decades of the 18th century-should be analyzed in a wider Osmanli historical context of modernization which is defined "by the change the Ottoman provincial policy underwent in the 17th century and the rise of provincial elites in the 18th century" ( [78] p. 275) ( [79] p. 814, 818). Considering the endogenous socioeconomic historical developments occurring across the Caliphate further ameliorates our historical assessment considering the decision deciding to adjudicate other inter-related reforms such as the administrative (provincial) reform during tanzimat called the Law of Vilayets in 1864 [80] (p. 89).…”

“…If one's own "religion" is attacked, by unbelievers who necessarily conceptualize it schematically, or all religion is, by the indifferent, one tends to leap to the defence of what is attacked, so that presently participants of a faith-especially those most involved in argument-are using the term in the same externalist and theoretical sense as their opponents [44] (p. 43). Considering the aforementioned legal-historical (re)evaluations seeking to deconstruct "mainstream" historiography on tanzimat are vital to consider when attempting to un-learn the dominant history of the Osmanli Caliphate filtered through problem-solving (governing) paradigms reifying knowledge structures characterizing an epistemology that is different to the temporal cultural evolution of Latin-European modernization [31,79]. A responsible historical analysis concerned with discussing the organic motives surrounding tanzimât in general, and Osmanli civilization in particular, should bear in mind that the Caliphate continuously engaged in socio-economic tahdith enabling them to "maintain flexibility and adapt to changing circumstances" [79] (p. 819).…”

“…Considering the aforementioned legal-historical (re)evaluations seeking to deconstruct "mainstream" historiography on tanzimat are vital to consider when attempting to un-learn the dominant history of the Osmanli Caliphate filtered through problem-solving (governing) paradigms reifying knowledge structures characterizing an epistemology that is different to the temporal cultural evolution of Latin-European modernization [31,79]. A responsible historical analysis concerned with discussing the organic motives surrounding tanzimât in general, and Osmanli civilization in particular, should bear in mind that the Caliphate continuously engaged in socio-economic tahdith enabling them to "maintain flexibility and adapt to changing circumstances" [79] (p. 819). It is historically interesting to note that Karen Barkey, in her renowned work entitled Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective states that during tanzimat the Caliphate "lost their Empire and the best of what they possessed: their diversity, ingenious flexibility, and resiliency" [35] (p. 3).…”

“…It is historically interesting to note that Karen Barkey, in her renowned work entitled Empire of Difference: The Ottomans in Comparative Perspective states that during tanzimat the Caliphate "lost their Empire and the best of what they possessed: their diversity, ingenious flexibility, and resiliency" [35] (p. 3). Barkey continues-as highlighted by Endelman-by emphasizing that the Caliphate before the reforms allowed for cultural and religious "differences while maintaining some degree of control through the hub-and-spoke system where provinces were connected vertically with the center but not horizontally with each other" [79] (p. 819). While one might hasten to claim that Barkey or Endelman are arguing that the Caliphate became antagonistic towards cultural and religious differences because the period of tanzimat sought "civilized mores" extraneous to a society adhering to Arab-Islamic jurisprudence, they are arguing quite the opposite in that it is the "rise of nationalism in the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century" which began making it less "accepting of religious and cultural difference than previously" with the nation-state paradigm "sectarianizing" cross-cultural civilizational relationships [26,34] ( [32] pp.…”